From: Marcos Marado <marado@isp.novis.pt>
To: pomac@vapor.com
Cc: Linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, fawadlateef@gmail.com,
s0348365@sms.ed.ac.uk, hostmaster@ed-soft.at,
jerome.lacoste@gmail.com, carlsj@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: New Linux Development Model
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 12:37:56 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1131539876.8930.44.camel@noori.ip.pt> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1131535832.2413.75.camel@localhost>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2613 bytes --]
On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 12:30 +0100, Ian Kumlien wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 11:08 +0000, Marcos Marado wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 02:47 +0100, Ian Kumlien wrote:
> > > Atm, the 'ancient' ieee802.11 is what breaks the ipw2200 build. So,
> > > basically all testing of cutting edge kernels gets very tedious due to
> > > the ieee802.11 package removing the offending .h file and making
> > > reversing -gitX and applying -gitY a real PITA.
> >
> > Those are no "ancient" versions, they are the "stable" versions of
> > ieee80211, ipw2100 and ipw2200. ipw* folks think, and I have to agree,
> > that for the stable kernel (Linux tree) it makes sense to add the stable
> > versions of their projects.
>
> Yes, that would make sense if everyone interested changed the 'unstable'
> version instead, since they change the version merged it only creates
> problems. And if you DO check out the ipw2200 site you see that there
> has been no stable release for about a year and that there has been a
> large amount of bugfixes.
>
> Also, the 'stable' version didn't use a separated ieee802.11 stack.
>
> So to summarize:
> Merging the latest version of both and then, if someone has problems,
> tell them to downgrade would be simpler. This also means that the
> ipw2200 team could release patches against the kernel as well as
> standalone modules.
>
> The 'stable' version that got merged is more or less useless to people
> who are smart about their wlans. And on a side note, even the firmware
> has improved since then.
I totally disagree. See: for those who don't crawl on lkml, don't
compile kernels or modules or stuff like that, they had two choices: be
without ipw2100 or ipw2200 or learn how to put the drivers in their
kernels. Now, with the stock kernel you have ipw* support, even if
limited for some uses. Most people will be happy with this version, but
yes, there's still work to be done. When there's a new version
considered stable it will get merged into the kernel. Until then, if you
want to ride the unstable horse, you'll have to patch it yourself into
the kernel.
If you want to simplify the process of building the unstable versios of
ipw* or if you think that the newer versions of ipw* should be
considered the new stable, or if you at some point disagree with ipw*
development model you should complain in ipw2100 mailing list at
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ipw2100-devel .
Kernel-related, the decision of supporting the latest stable is good and
justifiable.
--
Marcos Marado <marado@isp.novis.pt>
Novis ISP
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-11-09 12:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-11-09 1:47 Ian Kumlien
2005-11-09 11:08 ` Marcos Marado
2005-11-09 11:30 ` Ian Kumlien
2005-11-09 12:03 ` Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:03:07 +0100
2005-11-09 15:49 ` Ian Kumlien
2005-11-09 15:58 ` Al Viro
2005-11-09 16:32 ` Ian Kumlien
2005-11-09 12:37 ` Marcos Marado [this message]
2005-11-09 16:01 ` Ian Kumlien
2005-11-10 0:55 ` Alistair John Strachan
2005-11-10 15:10 ` Mark Lord
2005-11-10 19:29 ` Alistair John Strachan
2005-11-10 19:47 ` Ian Kumlien
2005-11-09 19:05 ` Bill Davidsen
2005-11-09 20:10 ` Marcos Marado
2005-11-10 0:57 ` Alistair John Strachan
2005-11-10 20:08 ` Bill Davidsen
2005-11-10 20:21 ` Alistair John Strachan
2005-11-12 13:45 ` Bill Davidsen
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-11-05 9:42 hostmaster
2005-11-05 10:29 ` Francois Romieu
2005-11-05 11:29 ` Jean Delvare
2005-11-05 13:19 ` Edgar Hucek
2005-11-05 13:44 ` Adrian Bunk
2005-11-05 13:47 ` Alistair John Strachan
2005-11-05 22:23 ` Mark Lord
2005-11-06 0:28 ` Alistair John Strachan
2005-11-05 14:34 ` Jesper Juhl
2005-11-05 14:48 ` Oliver Neukum
2005-11-05 14:56 ` Fawad Lateef
2005-11-05 15:28 ` Adrian Bunk
2005-11-06 10:52 ` jerome lacoste
2005-11-06 11:55 ` Edgar Hucek
2005-11-06 12:39 ` Adrian Bunk
2005-11-06 12:57 ` Bernd Petrovitsch
2005-11-06 17:38 ` Jean Delvare
[not found] ` <436DEEFC.4020301@ed-soft.at>
2005-11-06 13:43 ` jerome lacoste
2005-11-09 0:11 ` caszonyi
2005-11-09 0:23 ` Con Kolivas
2005-11-09 7:00 ` Diego Calleja
2005-11-09 12:30 ` jerome lacoste
2005-11-09 14:03 ` caszonyi
2005-11-09 15:45 ` Marcos Marado
2005-11-06 16:50 ` John Carlson
2005-11-06 18:17 ` Bernd Petrovitsch
2005-11-09 0:16 ` caszonyi
2005-11-06 15:22 ` Jim Nance
2005-11-06 16:55 ` John Carlson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1131539876.8930.44.camel@noori.ip.pt \
--to=marado@isp.novis.pt \
--cc=Linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=carlsj@yahoo.com \
--cc=fawadlateef@gmail.com \
--cc=hostmaster@ed-soft.at \
--cc=jerome.lacoste@gmail.com \
--cc=pomac@vapor.com \
--cc=s0348365@sms.ed.ac.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®